Kent News - Mental health charities defend controversial show

How to advertise
Contact us
Friday, September 3 2010, 7:04

Search local news and sport:

The latest news, sport, business, entertainment and local information where you live...

Mental health charities defend controversial show

<< Back to home

Some of the cast of How Mad Are You?

A TV programme that controversially adopted a reality show format to spot people with mental health issues has been defended.

In the BBC2 show, How Mad Are You?, which was filmed at Hever Castle, near Edenbridge, a panel of three experts watched 10 people perform a number of tasks, like paintball fighting, and doing a stand-up comedy act.

They had to then spot the five who had already been diagnosed with a mental illness.

One was anorexic and had been hospitalised three times, another was bipolar and deeply scarred themselves with burns, and a third had tried to commit suicide.

The panel was told to look out for anyone who suffers from depression, social anxiety, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anorexia.

Many media reports were critical of the show, the first part of which went out on Tuesday, with the Guardian newspaper saying: “We have to work out who’s mad and who’s not. Classy, huh? Is nothing now sacred, and exempt from the reality TV treatment? Mental illness is clearly OK. Why didn’t they just call it I’m a Nutter, Get Me Out of Here?”

Website TV Scoop called the format “a bit cheap and nasty”.

But mental health charity Mind defended the programme, despite the title.
Spokesman Alison Kerry said: “Stigma and discrimination are some of the biggest challenges faced by people with mental health issues, and a lot of this stems from the public’s misunderstanding of mental health.

“Once you get beyond the arguably inflammatory title to the programme How Mad Are You? and its reality TV style we found Horizon to be an excellent show which encouraged viewers to re-examine their preconceptions about mental health and any stereotypes they may hold about individuals with experience of mental distress.”

Antonia Borneo, senior policy officer at mental health charity Rethink, said: “When we heard about the programme Horizon was planning we were initially concerned. “But, after we spoke to some of the participants and the programme makers we were completely reassured. We have also seen both parts at a pre-screening and are very pleased with the results.

“It challenges the stigma and pre-conceptions around mental health. By using a popular format it will reach as wide an audience as possible and challenge us, the viewers, to rethink our own ideas of mental health.”

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, said: “In spite of the game show format, we feel the subject is dealt with sensitively and hope it will help to broaden public understanding and undermine the stigma that so often surrounds mental illness.”

A spokesman for Hever Castle said: “There has been some controversy about the programme in the media, but we feel it was a difficult subject handled with great sensitivity.”

The BBC said Tuesday’s programme was watched by 1.8 million people.

A spokesman said: “Mental health is a serious issue affecting nearly a quarter of the UK population and is an key issue for Horizon – the BBC’s flagship science strand - to investigate.

“How Mad Are You? raises important and thought-provoking questions about stereotype and stigma, as well as mental health diagnosis. The format of the programme is designed to engage a wide audience who wouldn’t normally watch a science documentary about mental health.”

POSTED: 15/11/2008 08:00:00

Become a movie star by posting your video on our Your Kent TV service. Simply log-on to YourKentTV.co.uk and follow the upload instructions.

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Comments:

Added: Friday 21/11/2008 19:21:18 UK

In my opinion, as a mental health service user, Horizon's 'How Mad Are You?' was a much needed and constuctive programme, which challenged mental health stigma.
It's 21st Century format made it more accessible to the wider public, and delivered mental health information which was interesting and easy to absorb.
The fact that neither participants or panel were able to discern the people with often high profile, and misunderstood mental illnesses, reinforced the one in four message.

Yvonne Stewart-Williams, Lambeth, London